Curtis P-40 or Macchi Mc.202

[Daviducus2]

In a face off between the two at low to medium altitude, which would you prefer and why?

 

[Bernhart]

macchi was a match for spits so would go with it. course i have va weak spot for the macchis

 

[pbfoot]

The P40 was right at home in the lower realms and I would think in head to head held the advantage in combats

 

[B-17engineer]

With PB, I think the P-40 was better and more rugged than the Mc. 202.

 

[vikingBerserker]

I was just reading in Combat Aircraft of World War II and it mentions the Mc 202 as

"..achieving complete superiority over the Hurricane and P-40"

This actually surprises me due to the lite armament the Mc 202 carried.

I'm kinda leaning towards the Mc 202.

 

[109ROAMING]

P-40 for looks alone

 

[Marcogrifo]

C.202, despite the weak armament

Cheers

 

[DAVIDICUS]

Were there variants of the Macchi Mc.202 that had 20mm cannons?

 

[Vincenzo]

if i remember right only a prototype

 

[timshatz]

P40. Better armament. Other than that, the Macchi probably has it for speed and climb, but it would be close in flat out speed.

 

[Glider]

The 202 for me. It had agility, acceleration, climb and in a straight line I don't think there was much in it. No question the P40 was better armed and an excellent GA aircraft but in a dogfight, the 202 has my vote.

 

[riacrato]

But 202s armament is really shitty. I mean in a "what were they thinking" kind of way. I don't really get it. It looks as if they could've easily fitted 12.7mm guns instead of rifle calibre mgs in the wings. Or at least fit 4-6 rifle calibre mgs.

 

[Vincenzo]

commonly no mg in the wing, they are only optional since a block (i don't remember what) and i think very rare in operation. the two italian .50 are not the best and the good but i think enough for shoot down a P-40

 

[billswagger]

.

 

[billswagger]

The P-40 could out turn the Macchi 202 and 205s but not the lighter 200s. I'm not making a power measurement, just simply looking at wing loading although sustained performance at altitude (20k ft +) probably went to the Macchi.
Macchi 205s had similar wing loading as a moderately loaded P-47 if that gives you any indication.

The Macchi was a faster plane in level flight and had much better climb characteristics. In the time it takes a P-40 to reach 6000m the Macchi could climb to 8000m. So the high altitude fight would be best avoided in a P-40, where the low altitude fight would be best avoided in the Macchi.
In comparisons at medium altitudes, the 205s probably shared similar zoom performance as the late P-40s (K-N) but roll performance and turn would've underperformed by comparison. The 202s were not far off, but the P-40 would still own it in turns by a small margin.

The reason i go with the P-40 is the armament of 6 50 calibers over a couple bredas. The 205 had more firepower but was probably better suited for attacking bombers from the looks of things. It simply was not as maneuverable, although faster, as the 202s.


Bill

 

[Saetta66]

if i remember right only a prototype

The first series were only armed with 2 × 0.50 inch Breda-SAFAT guns in the nose. Starting from Series VI armament was increased with 2 × 0.303 inch (7,7 mm) Breda-SAFAT guns in the wings.
Starting from Series XI underwing hardpoints were added to carry either bombs or drop tanks.
An unknown series (or a prototype ?) had 2 × 20 mm MG 151/20 cannons in underwing gondolas.

 

[dennis420b]

The MC-202, despite having the same problem as all the Italian fighter's, those pitiful SAFAT 12.7mm's. But look at the 202, shes a sports car. Fast, agile, just sexy to look at. It has style.

 

[Supermarine-SpitfireMkXIV]

Macchi Mc.202 Folgore Definitely!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

 

[fubar57]

This!!!!!!!thread!!!!!!!!!!is!!!!!!!! 8!!!!!!!!freakin!!!!!!!!years!!!!!!!!!!!old!!!!!!!!!

 

[Supermarine-SpitfireMkXIV]

Oh!